IRISH HISTORY: YESTERDAY & TODAY by Michael John Cummings

 

Screen Shot 2016-05-28 at 13.44.28

 

British  Ministry of Defense officials and other denizens of the Whitehall government complex behind # 10 Downing Street were jubilant.  The source of their joy?  Through their media tentacles the British continued to dominate   both sides of the Atlantic with  revisionist views of the 1916 Irish Easter  Rebellion.  The 6 day battle signaled  the beginning of the end of the British Empire.   To send a message it had  to be savagely crushed with murder and extra-legal executions.  The British still perpetuate myths and smears about the revolt.

Few U. S. media outlets chose to cover the anniversary of the week long conflict;   a success in itself for the British.  No matter.  Pre-emptive book reviews and commentary  diminishing the character, bravery, vision and determination of the rebels were at the ready.   President Obama managed a reference to the  Easter Proclamation but was  silent on British undermining of the Good Friday Agreement.  This from the man who has an opinion on bathrooms in North Carolina and tells  the British people how to vote.   Instead of reporting the historical significance of the rebellion,  many U. S.  media went with Betty’s 90th birthday or the  curious suspicious story of Jesuit Professor Seamus Murphy’s claim  that the revolt did not meet criteria for a  just war.    The issue was a stretch even for an egghead Professor but take it to the bank he is no Fr.  Berrigan.  Some media even managed to find space for deprecating remarks   about the Easter Rising  and its aftermath  from well known expert on the Irish conflict….Sir Rat of the Boomtown Rats, Bob Geldorf,  Take it to the bank he is no Bono who dares to to speak of Dublin Monaghan victims.

Michael Curtis in the American Thinker somehow managed to describe events following the rebellion without referring to  partition, re-unification of Ireland, treasonous Protestant bigots, mutinous British Army leaders or the 1918 election victory of Sinn Fein.  He states “the country has been divided..” as if by consent or democratic mandate  instead of force.    Several articles used phrases that smelled of British propaganda.  The use of the phrase “ blood lust”  by Ferghal McGarry  and others  referring to  Padraic Pearse  who welcomed death in the cause of freedom. You will not find any such phrase used in a British textbook or by a British historian to describe the Empire despite the savage slaughter of millions.  Only the Irish could have a ‘blood lust.’ Irish historian  Ruan O’Donnell retorted that the “…myth of the blood sacrifice should be laid to rest.” In film, book reviews and editorial opinion the phrase “… most Dubliners…”  was  used to describe residents opposition to the  six day battle.  Ask yourself.  Isn’t it more likely that phrase was supplied by loyalists or by those fearful of  20,000 troops.  Dublin  was in 1916…and to some extent still is…in 2016 a company town whose inhabitants  and media lived off British favor and whose newspapers like todays  Independent (sic) were  government mouthpieces.   No unbiased survey was taken.  The phrase was a press release prop.

Katherine Whittemore of the Boston Globe was one such journalist who apparently  lent some credence to the “..most Dubliners…”nonsense.  She inferred   that   the Irishmen who led the fight on Dublin streets were less  worthy of recognition than the Irishmen  who  joined the British Army in the true  ‘blood-lust’ royal squabble known as WW I. Many of the 30,000 Irishmen who died  were Nationalists  who  actually believed  the British were  going to grant Ireland independence after the war. All the while  British Parliamentarians like Bonar Law and Randolph Churchill supported  arming  a gang of Ulster loyalists to insure partition.  That  would be like Members of the U. S. Congress supporting  thousands of Oklahoma City bombers.    Keeping  large segments of the Irish people poor was a despicable colonial tool to replenish the ranks of the Army.

But let’s look at the big picture of British recent successes.  The  Telegraph, England’s Tory mouthpiece, continued its tradition  of scaremongering articles about threats in N. I..  The article claimed, without a single identifiable source,  that   N. I. is now a playground for ISIS .  Decades ago it was the Communist threat.  Now  MI-5 and the British Army play nice together when seeking more money for their mischief in N. I.     The Irish sounding reporter  Kate McCann was a nice  touch.   In Ireland Ministers Allan Kelly and   Charles Flanagan can’t say enough  wonderful things about the British.  This from the same government that gets  a two fingered salute from England  when it begs for more data about MI-5 and Army involvement in the  Dublin Monaghan  mass murder.  The British take particular pride in their neutering of American officials all in the name of the ‘special ‘relationship; one  which is more parasitic than special.  President Obama proclaimed   “…the US will always be a wind at your back…” and Vice President Biden exhorts  “…if we have a moral obligation to other parts of the world why not Ireland.”  These  empty meaningless phrases  delight British diplomats and make Whitehall rejoice!  A conference recently held in Washington on the Good Friday Agreement was the typical invitation- only no questions asked  foreign policy briefing which insures that British funded think tanks will always know more  about N. I. than American citizens.

However, some good news!  A Freedom of Information release discovered a demand from Margaret Thatcher of  Irish Taoiseach  Jack Lynch that  RUC officers be present at Gardai interrogations of IRA suspects.  The release did not indicate the response from the Irish government.  I’d like to think it went something like this:  Margaret when you produce the  list of all those accountable  for the slaughter of 34 innocent people in the act of war euphemistically called the Dublin-Monaghan bombings, you can have your Gardai-RUC cooperation.  But hey that’s just me!

14 Responses to IRISH HISTORY: YESTERDAY & TODAY by Michael John Cummings

  1. MT May 28, 2016 at 1:21 pm #

    “President Obama managed a reference to the Easter Proclamation but was silent on British undermining of the Good Friday Agreement.”

    What British undermining of the GFA?

    ” the curious suspicious story of Jesuit Professor Seamus Murphy’s claim that the revolt did not meet criteria for a just war. ”

    How is Murphy’s “claim” “curious suspicious”?

  2. MT May 28, 2016 at 1:28 pm #

    “He states “the country has been divided..” as if by consent or democratic mandate instead of force.”

    It was divided by consent and democratic mandate. The people in the north wanted to remain outside a nationalist state. It was nationalists who sought to divide (and succeeded in dividing) the British Isles by force.

    ” The use of the phrase “ blood lust” by Ferghal McGarry and others referring to Padraic Pearse who welcomed death in the cause of freedom. You will not find any such phrase used in a British textbook or by a British historian to describe the Empire despite the savage slaughter of millions. ”

    You won’t find British mainstream opinion championing or celebrating imperial slaughters. Mainstream Irish opinion does, however, champion and celebrate the 1916 men of violence. The reference to ‘blood lust’ is presumably a nod to Pearse’s own words.

    PS. Millions were savagely slaughtered? Is there evidence for this?

    • jessica May 28, 2016 at 8:03 pm #

      “It was divided by consent and democratic mandate. The people in the north wanted to remain outside a nationalist state. It was nationalists who sought to divide (and succeeded in dividing) the British Isles by force.”

      There was no nationalist state.
      There was just the country of Ireland who democratically expressed their desire for independence which was denied because 70% of the people in the north east refused to accept the democratic wishes of the majority and threatened and used violence to get their way.

      Don’t forget when you refer to those people in the north that wanted to remain outside a nationalist state, 30% of them did.

      Your argument that this expression of self determination somehow partitioned the British isles is ridiculous. For a start they are already partitioned geographically by the Irish sea. Secondly, why should the people on two separate land masses not choose to focus on their own island and its people?
      Does it not make more sense that they do?

      That is certainly what the people of England wanted, and how the war of independence was settled so your assertion that it went against the wishes of people on the other island is also false. It was the demands of the people of England to reject the violence being inflicted in their name that led to an end of hostilities.

      What is your evidence that the people of England wanted the British isles to be one country? They clearly did not.

  3. MT May 28, 2016 at 1:32 pm #

    “Katherine Whittemore of the Boston Globe was one such journalist who apparently lent some credence to the “..most Dubliners…”nonsense. ”

    It’s nonsense to say that most Dubliners didn’t support the ‘rising’? Have you evidence to show that they did support it?

    “All the while British Parliamentarians like Bonar Law and Randolph Churchill supported arming a gang of Ulster loyalists to insure partition. That would be like Members of the U. S. Congress supporting thousands of Oklahoma City bombers.”

    No it wouldn’t.

    • Jude Collins May 28, 2016 at 3:22 pm #

      Surely the onus would be on those who have always claimed that most Dubliners were opposed to the Rising to prove that their claim was valid? And weren’t a considerable number of those involved in the Rising from Dublin?

      • MT May 28, 2016 at 5:08 pm #

        “Surely the onus would be on those who have always claimed that most Dubliners were opposed to the Rising to prove that their claim was valid?”

        No. The other way round. You can’t prove a negative.

        “And weren’t a considerable number of those involved in the Rising from Dublin?”

        A few hundred people out of a population of half a million? Not very convincing, Jude.

        • Jude Collins May 28, 2016 at 6:30 pm #

          ‘You can’t prove a negative ‘ – highly debatable but irrelevant in this case. The assertion is that the people of Dublin were hostile to the Rising. Evidence?

          • MT May 28, 2016 at 7:07 pm #

            ‘You can’t prove a negative ‘ – highly debatable but irrelevant in this case. The assertion is that the people of Dublin were hostile to the Rising. Evidence?

            The assertion is that they were opposed.

            The evidence is the electoral support for constitutional nationalism, the volunteers to the Army, the non-participation and non-assistance of the insurrection.

            Where’s the evidence that they supported it?

          • Scott May 28, 2016 at 8:54 pm #

            ‘The consensus among historians is that an initially hostile public opinion was transformed by the executions into retrospective support for, and romanticisation of, the rebels.’

            Lee, Ireland 1912-1985 pp28-29.

            Here’s a historian who spent his life researching Irish history Jude. Its a good book defiantly worth a read

          • Scott May 28, 2016 at 9:14 pm #

            Also there was a total of 1250 people took part in the rising out of an estimated population of 500,000.

            I got that from Wikipedia so hopefully it’s right.

  4. Donal Kennedy May 28, 2016 at 1:50 pm #

    Well said, Michael John.

    The decade of remembrance is still young and we can confound the lying propagandists.

    They’ll have to trace and destroy all contemporary records of the 1918 and 1921 General
    elections, the 1920 municipal, county and other local elections, records of inquests, enquiries
    of British Quakers, Americans and others if their version of events is to survive, I doubt they’ll have the stomach for that fight.

    • jessica May 28, 2016 at 7:45 pm #

      “I doubt they’ll have the stomach for that fight.”

      I just hope there is a fight Donal.

      I thank God for people like yourself who care.

  5. ben madigan May 28, 2016 at 4:16 pm #

    here’s a little contemporary evidence of Dubliners’ thoughts on the Rising

    https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/thoughts-on-easter-week-the-way-we-were/

    • Scott May 28, 2016 at 8:49 pm #

      Any good historian asks about the reliability of there sources. Reading the little title Ben of the website called Irish Republic

      A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR PREVENTING THE LOYALISTS IN IRELAND, FROM BEING A BURDEN ON THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS OR COUNTRY, AND FOR MAKING THEM BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLICK

      A pretty biased source I’d say.

Leave a Reply